@Yanny:
Then we’ll clone from a younger one :)
My point is, mistakes were made with Dolly which were found. If we cloned another sheep today, it would have less genetic defects than Dolly.
if you want me to stop arguing these points, i’ll comply.
The thing is, “genetic defects” are not so much mistakes with the nature of the genetic structure (which are not so much “defects” as they are “form”) as they are problematic constraints of genetic manipulation due to an architecture that is created “flawed” from a cloning perspective.
Cloning (i.e. replicating) the genetic structure of Dolly’s DNA is not so difficult, and we have the technology in place to do this nearly as flawlessly as the mammallian systems in place. When we clone genetic material, we make few mistakes in replicating it. The problem is that the template itself is “bad”.
This is kind of like the limitations in copying from 5th or 9th generation video tapes. The first copy is nearly identical to the previous. The second loses something. The 3rd, 4th, 5th etc. all lose more sequentially. Now although you might have technology to PRECISELY replicate this material, the material you’re replicating is less than is optimal. This is a very simplified version of the difficulties in dealing with Dolly. True - you might clone from a younger sheep, but if that’s your interest, then just shoot Dolly up with some clomiphene citrate, and sit back and watch the multiple-gestation action.
As i’ve said before, until we can solve the telomere-shortening problem (which i can imagine that we should be able to do using even current replication technology to a certain degree, but no where near perfectly) then we have some big limitations with Dolly.